The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Cubs Combat Casino
Notre Dame Fan Takes It Too Far, Allegedly Punches Clausen
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The budget is a drag.
Smokers are the butt of the budget.
Um, the budget is all smoke and mirrors?
Yeah, we’re reaching here. Chicagoist suspects that The Tribune loves covering all things smoking-related just to throw feeble puns in the headlines.
Exhibit A is today’s’ article on Mayor Daley’s budget that lets Chicago drivers, homeowners, and businesses off the hook for the tax increase, but sticks it to smokers: “Budget is only a drag for some.”
Groan.
The Mayor’s only proposed tax increase this year is to levy another 20¢ per pack. [Sidebar: Chicagoist just noticed that there is no cent sign on the keyboard. We always thought there was, but it’s just never come up before. They used to be on typewriters, yes? We have to go hunting for it in “symbol” in Word. Oh look, an explanation.]
This tax boost bumps up the City’s take to 68¢ per pack.
Haven’t these smokers suffered enough? We already blame them for making our clothes stink in bars. We accuse them of killing us softly with their smog. And every time they try to raise their voices in protest they end up coughing for miles. Now we're throwing yet another tax on them. Poor little lambs.
Poor little yellow-teethed lambs.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I wonder whether the city's cigarette tax revenue will increase or decrease when if the proposed tax hike were paired with the smoking ban. Would the higher tax offset the reduction in sales? Or will the city still take in less cash from cigarette taxes?
I thought Daley was merely caving in to the restauranteurs and bar owners when he sought a compromise rather than an outright smoking ban, but it should be fairly obvious now that he's worried about the city's bottom line...
The article I read said the 9 million dollars in revenue included an estimated 12% decline in cig sales. I suspect that is based on the amount of smokers who will quit because of the higher price and does not consider decreased smoking due to a ban. I'm not sure they could even questimate at the effects of a ban.
I'm leery of these attempts to balance the budget on a niche group of citizens. Sure it's ok now since it's only smokers. But what about when the city wants to balance the budget targeting some niche that you're part of. It seems a little unfair that smokers should pay more, when home owners, drivers, business, etc are the benificiary. What happens when they start paying bloated patronage salaries with a tax on disaffected hipness? Huh, what then?
mmmm, lambs
I want to throttle this guy (from the TRIB)
"Beavers said he has no objection personally to raising the cigarette tax here, though he is a smoker.
With the tax already as high as it is--including a 16-cent-a-pack increase that was imposed earlier this year--the alderman said with a laugh, "I don't buy cigarettes in the city of Chicago, so it is not going to affect me."
Okay, so you are an alderman, you live in the city, you support tax hikes for the city, but you refuse to actually live under those tax hikes yourself. You are scum.
And it won't be long before Blago introduces a bill for us to get our cigarettes cheaper from Canada
Just QUIT already!
Why couldn't the bars that wanted smoking just open as private clubs? No admission without a membership and the membership says "Smoking is allowed".
The membership fee could be $5 or something - the equivalent of a cover charge.
funny smoker jokes guys. so did you do the chicago marathon? because my pack-a-day ass did it without breaking a sweat in pretty good time. so lets get over pretending that smokers are invalids who sit around wheezing and gasping for air. just saying.
so does this mean the city of chicago wants us to smoke or not? i'm starting to get confused. if we all quit, then the yuppies will have to pay property taxes.
much as you like to pretend it's not the case, you need us. otherwise you might have to pay your fair share of the city's budget. god forbid.
some asshole, don't act like you're saving the world. If all you smokers quit, they'd start taxing the drunks even more.
That is the deal, I don't even smoke, I just find it dispicable that this alderman will pass taxes and flaunt that he won't pay them.
taxes. i don't know. people who have money go to indiana, or better yet, buy their cigs off the internet. this bites people (largely poor people) who buy cigs a pack at a time.
what i don't like is the way smokers have become villified. i smoked reasonably socially for 10 years. in the last three years, it increased considerably due to the fact that i got sober. in the last year or so, i struggled to quit.
smoking is an addiction. from what i hear, it's harder to kick than heroine. many people start when they are teenagers. quitting has many, many elements to it, most of which are deep rooted and go way, way beyond any physical component (you're supposedly physically detoxed after three days).
the addiction model is one of the least understood concepts in america, yet we constantly perpetuate it by way of advertising and culture, especially with the two biggest LEGAL industries -- alcohol and cigarettes. and then we villify and denigrate those who have become addicted and wonder why they can't stop of their own willpower.
that's what i think is the real sad thing.
Some Asshole: If you're smoking a pack a day and "running a marathon without breaking a sweat", you're either doing something wrong or posting just to live up to your screen name.
chuck: comment does not compute. are you saying i'm an asshole because i smoke and i'm in shape? or that i'm an asshole for not smoking properly? let me assure you i inhale every last drop of tasty nicotine from my cancer rods and supplement it with other burnable commodities. i also get off my ass and exercise. they aren't mutually exclusive, bub.